Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

if we must have sprawl then we need good transit as well as roads. Roads alone cannot solve the transportation problem - that was my point when I invoked Los Angeles.

We'll have faster bus movement south of GMT without the tunnel bottleneck. That's the best transit that area is going to get.

Originally Posted by Marshal

Just being stupid, expressing the frustration that there often is no way to raise the level of a discourse. In spite of the "Ivory Tower" misnomer, I am used to the detail and subtlety of academic discourse - things that can truly bring real interest to a topic. Some people, not used to this level, glaze over and think it is stupid intellectual masturbation simply because they can't follow it, or can't imagine a discussion beyond the one they produce and share.

Posting vague attacks across multiple threads isn't the best way to raise discourse. You used to be one of the better posters here, not sure what happened in the last few days.

[AForce]

I remember reading a while ago about the cost difference between an 8 & 10 lane bridge. does anyone know where to find it? i think it was in one of the studys

[logicbomb]

If there is one corridor where LRT could work...its Hwy99.

Build a 10 lane bridge but designate two lanes for tracks. Public perception will totally change.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

If there is one corridor where LRT could work...its Hwy99.

Build a 10 lane bridge but designate two lanes for tracks. Public perception will totally change.

I support the bridge as it is now, but I would oppose it if it had LRT. Sending LRT down to South Delta (where I live) and South Surrey would be a huge waste of money. It's not justified. Frequent bus service in centre lanes is plenty good enough. But you need a new bridge for that to be possible. Buses get stuck in the current tunnel too.

A bridge would also allow for bike and pedestrian connections. It's really not that anti-green, especially if they build it with 8 lanes.

[ilikeredheads]

The new improved interchanges are just as important as the bridge itself. If they won't upgrade the interchanges, you can build a 16 lane bridge and it won't solve any problems long term because the bottlenecks remain.

This crossing is a major trucking corridor and guess what, trucks don't use public transit. Considering Vancouver is a port city, I'd say an efficient road network is pretty important. I'm also all for improving transit south of the Fraser. Unfortunately, the population simply doesn't justify building any rapid transit, so the only logical step is to improve bus service, which, surprise surprise, will benefit from having a new bridge.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

The new improved interchanges are just as important as the bridge itself. If they won't upgrade the interchanges, you can build a 16 lane bridge and it won't solve any problems long term because the bottlenecks remain.

This crossing is a major trucking corridor and guess what, trucks don't use public transit. Considering Vancouver is a port city, I'd say an efficient road network is pretty important. I'm also all for improving transit south of the Fraser. Unfortunately, the population simply doesn't justify building any rapid transit, so the only logical step is to improve bus service, which, surprise surprise, will benefit from having a new bridge.

[CanSpice]

I'll state right from the beginning that I'm not in favour of a 10-lane GMT replacement bridge.

THAT SAID, what I would be in favour of is a bridge (and highway interchanges) that is appropriately designed with the entire region's transportation infrastructure taken into account. This piecemeal nonsense about Vancouver being responsible for some bridges and the province being responsible for others and TransLink being responsible for even more and don't forget the feds have a bridge or two going into the airport and everybody and their dog is in charge of their own roads except for the major road network which is TransLink and the provincial highways which are the province's jurisdiction. It's bonkers, and it's why we end up with nonsense like the SFPR not connecting anywhere near the Port Mann or bullshit like the 72nd Ave stoplight after the Alex Fraser or the GMT replacement.

Why can't we have one stakeholder or group or whatever be responsible for Metro Vancouver's integrated transportation network and design, so that we don't get a mayor north of the tunnel saying it's bullshit and a mayor south of the tunnel saying it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Then you can actually design transit routes AT THE SAME TIME as designing for commercial truck traffic AT THE SAME TIME as designing for vehicle commuters and maybe you might get a solution that works for everybody.

That's kind of why I'm against this particular bridge is because it was just dropped into place by the province without consulting with Metro Vancouver or TransLink. Design the thing holistically for god's sake.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's kind of why I'm against this particular bridge is because it was just dropped into place by the province without consulting with Metro Vancouver or TransLink. .

You are from New West. New West considers itself to live in a bubble - removed the proposed Stormont connector from Official Community Plan, which would resolve some intra/inter regional traffic issues.

Shuts down Braid Bailey Bridge with Coquitlam. Refuses Translink's new connector thereto. In conflict with Surrey over proposed new Pattullo Bridge.

New West cannot even adhere to its own responsibilities on Metro Van issues therein. Certainly not credible on issues outside its borders as a result.

The Alex Fraser Bridge as well as the new Port Mann Bridge were also "dropped into place by the province without consulting with Metro Vancouver or TransLink". BC MoTI deals with both regional and provincial transportation issues. Translink deals with transit and Metro Van mayors deal with their own political fiefdoms.

If BC MoTI caves in to irrelevant mayoral jurisdictions then... "Houston... we have a problem".

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Pinion

We'll have faster bus movement south of GMT without the tunnel bottleneck. That's the best transit that area is going to get.



Posting vague attacks across multiple threads isn't the best way to raise discourse. You used to be one of the better posters here, not sure what happened in the last few days.

Sorry to be disappointing you Pinion. I'll shift the gears up a notch or two when I get back next week. One thing though, nothing has really been all that vague.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

If there is one corridor where LRT could work...its Hwy99.

Build a 10 lane bridge but designate two lanes for tracks. Public perception will totally change.

LRT would be a waste... build BRT with dedicated lanes.

Ron.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

If there is one corridor where LRT could work...its Hwy99.

Build a 10 lane bridge but designate two lanes for tracks. Public perception will totally change.

You need to give some rational or statistical support for what you say.

The HWY99 corridor is low on population, the population that is there is not the best socioeconomic fit for mass transit, the population is spread apart by long distances of very low occupancy land. It is a terrible corridor for rail. Express bus would be the best fit, aiming at just four locations: Ladner, Tsawwassen, BCFerries, and White Rock.

There are dozens of better corridors/routes for rail investment. The Skytrain network in the densest parts of Metro should be the priority. For the near future, I think LRT (including the 2 Surrey lines) is a distraction.

This bridge is needed for cars and trucks. It should be designed and built for that.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

If there is one corridor where LRT could work...its Hwy99.

Build a 10 lane bridge but designate two lanes for tracks. Public perception will totally change.

no it won't. people don't live by the highway. If anything just extend Canada Line to south Richmond and Skytrain via King George to South Surrey and that's it.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Marshal

You need to give some rational or statistical support for what you say.

The HWY99 corridor is low on population, the population that is there is not the best socioeconomic fit for mass transit, the population is spread apart by long distances of very low occupancy land. It is a terrible corridor for rail. Express bus would be the best fit, aiming at just four locations: Ladner, Tsawwassen, BCFerries, and White Rock.

There are dozens of better corridors/routes for rail investment. The Skytrain network in the densest parts of Metro should be the priority. For the near future, I think LRT (including the 2 Surrey lines) is a distraction.

This bridge is needed for cars and trucks. It should be designed and built for that.

I agree completely with this except for two minor notes.

1. Skytrain to Langley should be built (maybe starting construction in 5 years or so would be a good time frame).

2. The bridge is needed for cars, trucks, and buses. It should be designed and built for that.

PS, the current plan we have is designed for all for all of the above, making its potential cancellation even more depressing.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

This piecemeal nonsense about Vancouver being responsible for some bridges and the province being responsible for others and TransLink being responsible for even more and don't forget the feds have a bridge or two going into the airport and everybody and their dog is in charge of their own roads except for the major road network which is TransLink and the provincial highways which are the province's jurisdiction. It's bonkers...

The goal of having integrated transportation planning is the reason why Translink was given jurisdiction over some roads and bridges. But like everything else the Provincial Government did, they talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. They've kept Translink on a short leash and starved it of funding so that they can simultaneously maintain control while using it as a shield to dodge any blame.

My problem with the bridge isn't with the bridge itself, it's with a government that has a different set of rules for it's own pet transportation projects while throwing up obstacles for other, just as desperately needed projects.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Marshal

You need to give some rational or statistical support for what you say.

The HWY99 corridor is low on population, the population that is there is not the best socioeconomic fit for mass transit, the population is spread apart by long distances of very low occupancy land. It is a terrible corridor for rail. Express bus would be the best fit, aiming at just four locations: Ladner, Tsawwassen, BCFerries, and White Rock.

There are dozens of better corridors/routes for rail investment. The Skytrain network in the densest parts of Metro should be the priority. For the near future, I think LRT (including the 2 Surrey lines) is a distraction.

This bridge is needed for cars and trucks. It should be designed and built for that.

Low density as of now...but you better believe there will be mounting pressure to increase density and unlock some of the ALRs in the near future as the amount of developable land shrinks. If the GMB gets built then this will be a reality much like how Langley and Walnut Grove saw a boom once the new PMB saw completion.

I reckon many here feel that LRT or rail via the Port Mann bridge would have been better fit to deal with the increasing demands SOF in Langley and N Surrey. The 555 is nearing max capacity at 6-7min frequencies at rush hour.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

keep in mind, the TransLink issue was the NDPs thing. a nice little left over from the last time they were in charge.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I agree completely with this except for two minor notes.

1. Skytrain to Langley should be built (maybe starting construction in 5 years or so would be a good time frame).

2. The bridge is needed for cars, trucks, and buses. It should be designed and built for that.

PS, the current plan we have is designed for all for all of the above, making its potential cancellation even more depressing.

Yes, forgot the buses. In a perfect world we would serve Langley and beyond, and maybe South Surrey, with WestCoast Express expansion. It's still a long low-density way out to Langley through Surrey. And while that corridor would densify with transit, there is better potential in other places.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Low density as of now...but you better believe there will be mounting pressure to increase density and unlock some of the ALRs in the near future as the amount of developable land shrinks. If the GMB gets built then this will be a reality much like how Langley and Walnut Grove saw a boom once the new PMB saw completion.

I reckon many here feel that LRT or rail via the Port Mann bridge would have been better fit to deal with the increasing demands SOF in Langley and N Surrey. The 555 is nearing max capacity at 6-7min frequencies at rush hour.

Meant as good natured ribbing: I just noted your name "logicbomb." You might want to rethink that: it's not logical to name yourself as a dose of logic when you posts are not actually very logical. Maybe "falacybomb," I count three, albeit two are rather obscure.

None of what you say is a certainty (by a long shot) + Vancouver's growth can still be accommodated within the current plan and without taking any of the ALR - for decades. You are convinced of what is no more than a guess. I have no problem with that except the false certainty you give it. The opposite is maybe more likely: as land pressures continue to increase, the ALR may become even more valued and strict. (I have done projects in the ALR and you are dreaming if you think it is anything but rock solid, and likely to remain so.)

[libtard]

So now we get to drive along hwy99 and see the pre-loaded sand sit there for a few years?

[moosejaw]

More great ideas!!!!

http://www.delta-optimist.com/opinion/we-can-t-allow-government-to-make-another-mistake-1.20727718

http://www.delta-optimist.com/opinion/letters/north-arm-crossing-also-needed-1.20797952